Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Too Late for Thompson?

Chris is away for the rest of the week but politics -- thankfully -- goes on.

This afternoon former Sen. Fred Thompson (R-Tenn.) inched even closer to formally entering the presidential race by announcing his plans to kick off his campaign on Sept. 6. The sort-of announcement came during a conference call with campaign supporters and donors and that confirmed the obvious: Thompson will be a candidate for president in 2008.

Lingering over the proceedings, however, is the question of whether Thompson has waited too long to get into the race. Most Republicans concede that if Thompson had entered at the height of the buzz around him -- some time in July -- he might have even unseated former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani as the GOP frontrunner.

But now, after a month of negative press centered around a number of staff departures, Thompson finds that momentum blunted somewhat. The inside-the-Beltway crowd -- in truth, never Thompson believers -- seem to be convinced that his moment has passed. Polling, both national and in key early states, shows Thompson in the game but falling slightly from his numbers in mid to late June and early July.

So, is Thompson's announcement too little too late or not? Does he still have a chance to sell himself as the conservative alternative to Giuliani and former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-Mass.) or not?

By Chris Cillizza  |  August 30, 2007; 4:54 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Vacation (For Real This Time)
Next: Midnight Riders


chbaf zlfsgadx rbehksqy lzubgodah ayjgrlkd bnriz xhjbpqwus

Posted by: wcjx rvbpcd | October 6, 2007 10:36 AM | Report abuse

xoerjw gblo dtuamnx wqmz jqpvo zbpcd xymrzjqg

Posted by: urbochzlq dila | October 6, 2007 10:35 AM | Report abuse

Hello! Good Site! Thanks you! opzqcuhnodav

Posted by: efeeazoxqo | October 1, 2007 3:27 PM | Report abuse

kitd piqgwt jfbylm agnmcdxk uvko hxserawb fjlgz [URL][/URL] yzvri phdx

Posted by: omkwtf etviga | September 29, 2007 5:53 AM | Report abuse

yupea rvtk cjyltnw rylsbkdhf atzqudls fghclazds lpfd [URL=]rmxou zqpwtr[/URL]

Posted by: qtapsur swfilxke | September 29, 2007 5:52 AM | Report abuse

eobcfntad qyuznwt uktjnfxac tiwp cxmz dpaczji ukaob

Posted by: qxgvka awcsxkf | September 29, 2007 5:51 AM | Report abuse

If you look at the Thompson Internet performance starting the week of 7/26 to present you can clearly see a growing market share online compared to other formally announced candidates. This is very interesting as it shows a proactive effort to use the Internet to market him online.
Fred Thompson - Weekly Internet Performance Ranking (Online Candidate Market Share)

If you take a look at all of the 650 factors used to calculate this market share and compare that to performance of other candidates it's very interesting how a non-candidate can outperform an actual candidate.

Posted by: Robert McPhee | September 6, 2007 9:55 PM | Report abuse

I have been blogging now for nearly ten months about these presidential elections. At this point, I do a search for Fred Thompson on Google and nearly everything is negative. The majority of the people who were supporting Thompson are now supporting someone else who seems to be divided between Romney and Paul as candidates. At least, that is what they are telling me.

Fred Thompson is behind in Iowa, New Hampshire, and several other key state polls. He does not have much of a team put together. I do not know where he stands on issues because his website is more geared to getting him into the nominating process then what his stand on issues are. I don't entirely trust his life as a Senator in relation to issues, but as a lobbyist where he dosen't have to report his activities to the people because of "attorney-client privilege."

So far, he still has the issue of his activities as a lobbyist in question. Lobbyists are well known for buying politicians, at least that is a major perception issue he will need to overcome. I seriously doubt this perception will be an easy one to eliminate in this generation.

I don't see the media changing their perspective on Thompsons' entry into the arena. They will likely continue to hold grudges against Thompson for not commiting earlier. The voter will also likely follow the media in terms of perception. The very idea that Thompson is entering after significant straw-polls have taken place is apparently looked at as an unforgiven sin against them in terms of lost money. Now, here is a case study for you. Let's look at McCain and how he has faired once the media showed biasness towards him. It appears to me that McCain is all but officially out of the race.

Another challenge Thompson will have is the idea that he is an actor. With publications like the National Enquirer demonstrating the terrible state of life among people in that profession, it will likely be a significant challenge that awaits him. Who knows what other skeletons are in the closet?

Posted by: ceo1 | September 1, 2007 9:19 PM | Report abuse

The saddest part is that millions of ignorant and childish Americans won't differentiate between the character and views of Arthur Branch(?) and Fred Thompson.

Until we improve our educational system to the point where we teach our children critical thinking skills and ensure that they know how our government works, there will always be the possibility of G.W.'s and Thompsons running for the presidency -- with the former getting eleced.

Posted by: FemaleNick | September 1, 2007 4:19 PM | Report abuse

Whether he got in the race in July or in September, it's an uphill climb, and he doesn't look up to it--either personally and physically, or by dint of his staff. His bona fides are, like other Republicans, a mile wide and an inch deep. And they'll be exposed if his candidacy becomes a serious threat to Mitt and Rudy.

He becomes the Barack Obama of Republicans: presence (but handsome?), well-known as an actor, maybe personable (but not as good as Gov. Huckabee) with a resume that serious people will probably dismiss.

He's a pasteboard cutout for his TV career, and--as other posters have eloquently pointed out--not half the politician (or communicator) that Reagan was.

I'm no fan of Reagan (thanks to the huge budget deficits), but he did communicate well enough to help unify much of the country around a common enemy. I do give him credit for that.

Posted by: pacman | September 1, 2007 3:20 PM | Report abuse


Thomson wanted to show he had it.

But no...too late!

Posted by: John Bailo | August 31, 2007 11:52 PM | Report abuse

i'm praying for a thompson win too...that fat lazy windbag will sputter right from the start. he's more of a 'here's another chance for me to be popular' candidate than someone with a true desire to run this country, and his campaign will sputter and die. out of all possible contenders, as a loyal dem i'd most rather face fred. but i agree with chris; fred could've made a serious run at the gop nomination but now he's just another flash in the pan. i think it's over for him, but i hope i'm wrong because he's easily the most beatable republican out there.

Posted by: oregonliberal | August 31, 2007 6:00 PM | Report abuse

Golly "UMich96", if IMMIGRATION really is the BIG ISSUE out here beyond the Beltway--and being over 7,000 miles away from it, you can't get much more "away"--and one of your candidate-types win, who's gonna do the dirty work in your neighborhood? Trim the trees, repair the infrastructure (pipes, potholes, etc.), do all the scut work since you and your ilk by now have proved they certainly won't? And who's gonna work in the fields to provide your food? Or watch your kids while you toil? Nah, let's just ship all them illegals back to where they came from. (FYI: My daughter, who graduated from Blair HS in Silver Spring, is UMich '07; she was discouraged her first month in Ann Arbor (because she thought she was, to hear what the right-wingnuts always said, at Berkeley Mid-America) when she kept running into all "these Republicans foaming at the mouth". She survived her four years nicely however.

Posted by: fracas | August 31, 2007 5:40 PM | Report abuse

If anything ,the entrance of Fred Thompson will kill any momentum Huckabee has and will blunt Romney's numbers. Having Thompson in the race, IMO, only helps Guiliani and McCain believe it or not as it throws another big name into the race of the conservative quintet. Any Romney supporters who question his authenticness on issues such as abortion will defect to Thompson because he is everything Romney claims to be without the questions of truely being them.

Guiliani won't be touched much by Thompson because his supporters aren't looking for a more conservative candidate. They already know about his liberal posititions and obviously don't care about them.

Romney will be hurt the most as Thompson will take directly from him.

McCain, and possibly Huckabee if he can keep his momentum going, will behelped some as Romney's numbers come back toward them and they again compete for a top 3 slot in Iowa.

Brownback could be killed by this but if he stays in, he only furthers assists McCain and Huckabee stay closer to the top.

Posted by: Rob Millette | August 31, 2007 4:03 PM | Report abuse

Fred Thompson is boring and his wife is scary

Posted by: Anonymous | August 31, 2007 2:12 PM | Report abuse

So he is entering, but he is far from victory. When you look at the polls, they already include F. Thompson. Now, this just divides the vote into a 3 way frenzy: Guiliani vs. Romney vs. F. Thompson. If Romney wins Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada, F. Thompson takes South Carolina and Guiliani take Florida we have a 3 way race. If F. Thompson wins most of the southern states, Romney wins the midwest and Guiliani takes New York, Fl., Cali., Ill., Conn., New Jersey and all those traditionally liberal will be a tough nomination fight but gives Guiliani his best hope. If Romney or F. Thompson can defeat the other one and reduce him, then they will win the nomination.

Posted by: reason | August 31, 2007 2:09 PM | Report abuse

Thompson is already washed up. The traction that other candidates have is not going to go away now. He does not have a record of getting things done and the public wants to hear from people with strong records. Hence, the growing popularity of Mike Huckabee (further right than Thompson) and most especially Ron Paul.

Ron Paul particularly is doing VERY well across the board with Republicans especially, but also with independents and anti-war Dems.

Thompson is a has-been before he ever was.

Posted by: T is for Texas | August 31, 2007 2:05 PM | Report abuse

Adams, JQ adams, Kennedy, Truman...

I'd put Reagan in with Taft, Taylor and Eisenhouer, Clinton. Middle of the road.

Bush gets official '2nd coming of Hoover' award.

Posted by: The Hall of Presidents | August 31, 2007 1:15 PM | Report abuse

My favorite comment on this board... Reagan in the top 5 for our Presidents ...sure if your head is in the sand. try mixing any of these up and see if there is room for the "great communicator "

Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Lincoln, Jackson, FDR, Teddy Roosevelt, Wilson ...

please Reagan just like Thompson will be a joke !

Posted by: Jimmy | August 31, 2007 1:04 PM | Report abuse

Other than both being actors, I don't see the similarity between Fred Thompson and Reagan. Reagan possessed executive experience as governor of California and had run against Ford in the 1976 primary. Reagan left acting behind and became a politician. Additionally, Reagan was a strong figure in the Republican party and fairly well regarded (although one can't forget the "voodoo economics" dig by Bush). Reagan also had strong cross-over appeal inspiring the term "Reagan Democrats" and he performed well in the Democratic bastions of New England, the Mid-Atlantic, and West Coast. While I don't believe he was one of our five greatest presidents, he was certainly one of the five best communicators and excellent at articulating a vision for the country. I look at Thompson and I see a dilettante. He seems like any number of big name/reputation candidates from the past (Clark, Bradley, Hart, Romney the elder, etc) that jump in and are forgotten by February of the election year. He just further fractures the religious right/conservative vote between Romney and Huckabee. I can't see him knocking of Giuliani. Even "real/normal/regular" people who don't participate in these boards probably have an inkling about Giuliani's positions now and have made up their mind. Thomspon's greatest "achievement" might be to do in McCain which would be a real shame as McCain is a better politician and a better leader. I don't think Thompson ever had an ideal time to jump in any earlier he would've been the Republican version of Howard Dean.

Posted by: Sean | August 31, 2007 1:01 PM | Report abuse

Yes, that's a big problem: Pro border lockdown is essentially anti-business in the eyes of the laissez-faire free traders.

Also, there's a big crossover between anti-immigration crowd and the anti-outsourcing crowd. Also no friend of the big business side.

Basically the uneasy truce between east coast fiscal conservativism and bible-belt has come to an end, since that only worked because they had a winner on their hands. No more on that end.

Posted by: DCAustinite | August 31, 2007 12:17 PM | Report abuse

As poster Ed Lulie says - "...the issue is IMMIGRATION..."
He's absolutely right. As a conservative, I have experienced it as the one issue that can be discussed with agreement in any crowd. Liberal, conservative or anywhere in between.

Posted by: UMich*96 | August 31, 2007 12:14 PM | Report abuse

Dave C, at 11:50, what you are observing, though may not yet realize it, is that the GOP doesn't know what it stands for anymore. That coalition that Bush/Rove built to get into office in 2000 & 2004 is fractured. Fiscal conservatives are fed up with the growth of government under the Bush administration. Social conservatives are fed up with broken promises about abortion & gays. The 'lock down the border & send 'em all home' crowd can't find agreement with the 'hey, we need cheap labor' crowd.

None of the GOP contendors can rebuild this coalition of voters in order to win the White House.

Posted by: bsimon | August 31, 2007 12:06 PM | Report abuse

Thompson is the only candidate the Republican Party has come up with that has the charisma needed for the presidency. What he will really have to deal with is an unpopular current Republican president. He is light-years ahead of the others. Come on, Guiliani is a Republican in name only. Romney was pro-choice, and McCain made himself very unpopular with that immigration bill that (thank God) failed. What about Ron Paul? Why don't we hear more from him?

Posted by: Dave C. | August 31, 2007 11:50 AM | Report abuse

Oh I see you're right, Loudoun, his candidacy is still pre-born!

We wait for baited breath for yet another tediously predictable, rich, chickenhawk whitebread Republican demagogue/Revisionist Reagan wannabe/corporate sock puppet to declare...

Posted by: drindl | August 31, 2007 11:23 AM | Report abuse

Not even news anymore. He's a joke who doesn't even take the position for which he wants to run seriously. I heard recently that he would be skipping a debate to go on one of the late shows? (maybe this is not correct but it certainly aligns with the image he's portrayed up to now).

I get the feeling that he's only in the race to entertain himself. If he was serious he would have been in there all along with everyone else.

Posted by: Paul S. | August 31, 2007 11:23 AM | Report abuse

now now drindl -- this was just the announcement of the announcement. 8>D

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | August 31, 2007 11:10 AM | Report abuse

Finally, Thompsons' entry gives us an alternative to the stale GOP choices of rich, white men!

Posted by: RON PAUL | August 31, 2007 11:05 AM | Report abuse

As a lifelong Democrat, I certainly hope Thompson stakes his campaign on taking an unrealistic but unrelenting enforcement-only, border-centric approach to the immigration issue. It is working as well for candidates Tancredo and Hunter as it did for President Pat Buchanan...oops. Sure, take some campaign advice from JD Hayworth, John Hostettler, Randy Graf, etc., and boldly stand on the wrong side of history (bash gay people while you're at it). I don't think it will get traction even in the primaries, but it will certainly help Dems with moderate, Latino, immigrant, and Catholic voters and anyone else who would rather see politicians solve problems as they are rather than defining enemies as they aren't.

Posted by: Andi Medi | August 31, 2007 11:02 AM | Report abuse

Could Thompson have picked a WORSE time to announce? Nobody is paying attention -- it's Labor Day weekend for chrissake. Maybe ivory tower folks who don't live and work on regular schedules understand that. But it's just another example of his tin ear and failure to connect with real people.

Posted by: drindl | August 31, 2007 10:38 AM | Report abuse

Reagan's "greatness" is in part a product of the embarrassments who served before and after him. Nixon, Carter, Bush, and Bush all among the worst ever. Only Clinton was any good -- but of course had certain "flaws" himself.

But that's neither here nor there.

If the case for Thompson is that people hurled the same insults at Reagan, then Thompson is in trouble (that's for Peanuts fans). I knew Ronald Reagan, and Thompson is no Reagan.

Posted by: Spectator2 | August 31, 2007 10:38 AM | Report abuse

Reagan one of the greatest presidents? Ah, the ability of wingers to revise history. Reagan had severe Alzheimer's the entirity of his presidency and Nancy made all the decisions, with the help of her astrologer. Those of us who were alive at the time have to laugh when the delusional indulge in their revisionist fantasies.

Posted by: Clark | August 31, 2007 10:19 AM | Report abuse

i'm not socially conservative the way huckabee is, but out of the whole slew of Republican candidates, I gotta tell you: he's the one who I like the most; he oozes charm and integrity. Why hasn't he garnered more support? I'm surprised. Is it visibility? His guys have gotta get him out there.

Thompson DOES look like the creature from the black lagoon. All those talking heads who have been touting him as handsome have to get their heads examined. And what the hell has the guy ever done?

Posted by: janet | August 31, 2007 9:37 AM | Report abuse

Thompson is as phony as that beat-up red pickup truck he rented as a prop for his last campaign... and about as folksy as the highpaid Hollywood hack that he is.

Posted by: Daisy | August 31, 2007 9:33 AM | Report abuse

I think Thompson had his best window a month ago. It isn't closed but the amount of work he'll have to do as a candidate is enormous-- and he doesn't strike me as a guy who likes working hard.
On a separate front, he might have the right qualities to appeal to the base, but is America really interested in a candidate that appeals to the hard right? I don't think so. This will be a change election and Thompson isn't enough of a change from what we have now. None of the R's are.

Posted by: DB | August 31, 2007 9:08 AM | Report abuse

Many of these same accusations were made against Ronald Reagan when he was running, and history has shown us that he was one of the four or five greatest presidents.

Ummmmm, I'd say that definitely depends on your point of view. Most historians that I've read would not agree with that assessment of Reagan.

Regardless, I certainly don't recall hearing any "Reagan is too lazy to win" talk way back in 1980. If you could provide examples, that would be terrific.

Posted by: Fishbone McGonigle | August 31, 2007 8:10 AM | Report abuse

If he wears a Reagan mask, he'll be fine.

Posted by: Steve Barry | August 31, 2007 7:23 AM | Report abuse

Not. Now that Huckabee's getting traction he doesn't have enough room on the right. He'll probably have to effectively skip Iowa now.

Posted by: AJ | August 31, 2007 7:16 AM | Report abuse

Yes, Fred Thompson might be able to win the South, but that's all and the South is all the Republicans themselves are going to win this time around, apart from a few neanderthal states like Utah, Wyoming and Idaho. I think the Republican party is seeing its last days. Enjoy them while they last, rednecks.

Posted by: JGG | August 31, 2007 7:10 AM | Report abuse

Fred Thompson looks like the creature from the black lagoon and he has a reputation for being a lazy tired man (again, he looks the part). Fred Thompson would have a claim to be true conservative, but frankly, his record on abortion (including a lobbying stint for an abortion firm) and multiple marriages put him in the same category as Rudy and Mitt, someone whose conservative credentials don't really hold up to scrutiny. So I don't really see him adding more to the race. His announcement is yet another sign of how the Republicans can't put up a true contendor this year. What will be amusing is if Newt Gingrich who has the charisma of a newt also throws his hat in later. It will make the Republican presidential field look even more shallow and inauthentic.

Posted by: JGG | August 31, 2007 7:08 AM | Report abuse

I just don't have much to say lately.
Eh. Not much on my mind lately.
adipex cheap

Posted by: adipex diet pill | August 31, 2007 5:53 AM | Report abuse

Site - very comprehensive and meticulous from all points of view, it’s good!
Just excellent website, I'm sure!
adipex 180

Posted by: adipex side effects | August 31, 2007 5:51 AM | Report abuse

Um, Reagan never really stopped running after 1976 (and, btw, he stopped being an actor and became a full time politician back in the 1960's). Thompson, on the other hand, started in politics, then got into acting, spent a few years in the Senate but rediscovered why he hated it, and went back to acting (talk about committment issues...). To compare Thompson to Reagan is almost as stupid as arguing you should vote for him because he's really tall... oh wait, someone already did that...

LEt's face facts, the guy's been one of the most dreary candidates for President I've ever seen (what's all this talk about how much he worries for the country, Reagan was always an incredible optimist), for all the talk of his acting skills he's proved to be a horrible speaker, he can't put a decent organization together, and his strategy to this point seems to have been to let everyone else destroy one another so he can skate to the nomination at the last minute by being the new kid on the block- not a lot of confidence. This whole campaign announcement on the internet just seems like the most ridiculus thing of all. Keep pulling for the guy, though. Obama-Napoltano will blow him out of the water. Guiliani isn't running as a conservative, all this does is hurt Romney by dividing the anti-Guiliani vote even more.

Posted by: Michael | August 31, 2007 3:03 AM | Report abuse

One major difference between Fred Thompson and Ronald Reagan is that Thompson hasn't spent a long stretch being governor of a major state like California. Reagan's days as a B actor were long behind him when he ran for President, whilst that (and a short spell in Congress) are all Thompson's done.

Posted by: davric | August 30, 2007 11:29 PM | Report abuse

While it's true that Sen. Thompson has lost a little bit of ground since July, being late to the party didn't stop Reagan in 1980.

While Guiliani and Romney compete with each other to wear the crown of "authentically conservative," Sen. Thompson simply strides to the podium and smiles. And it's a knowing smile, because Thompson understands that in the moral high ground of Republican Red America neither Guiliani nor Romney can match the "true authenticity" of his deep-timbered Southern drawl.

Thompson knows that "Southern-Fried Reagan" is the kind of comfort food that Red County America is craving in a time of tremendous social, economic, and moral insecurity.

Too late? We think not. And, for Democrats, Thompson's candidacy is a real wake-up call. He might not be the strongest Republican candidate in decades, but he's got a powerful persona, some serious height advantage, and the big dog swagger that consistently wins over the voters in Purple State America.

Game on!

Peter S. Cohl
The Political Brandwagon

Posted by: Peter S. Cohl | August 30, 2007 10:46 PM | Report abuse

You know its funny. Last time I heard this much talk about a surething election was Bush 1 before Clinton arrived. Thompson will not only win the nomination but will win in 2008.
What about Iraq?
That won't be the issue, the issue for all you blind inside the beltway types is IMMIGRATION.
Not a single dem is on the right side (the fix the borders first side).
Nows the time to get that degree in psy. because with the depth of delusion around in the mainstream media (and the WP) waking up after the election in 2008 might be the traumatic event of a lifetime for those on the left and have their shrinks overburdened with those in shock.
There isn't another GOP candidate that can win even against the worst fake smile fraud ever, Hillary.
But Fred can and will.

Posted by: Ed Lulie | August 30, 2007 10:34 PM | Report abuse

As Judge Crater pointed out, there is a lot of unhappiness among many conservative Republicans about the leading candidates. Many evangelicals are suspicous of Romney's religion. Many more are suspicious of his sudden conversion to religious right social issues stands. Giuliani is pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-gun control - need I say more. If Thompson had entered the race 2-3 months ago, he might have cornered the market on the "real conservative" alternative to Romney or Giuliani. I think Huckabee is better positioned to take that mantle. Huckabee has problems with the Club for Growth crowd since he actually tried to accomplish things in Arkansas and had to raise the revenue to do it.

As I have maintained for months, the longer the Republican race has 3 or more serious contenders, the better Giuliani's chances are.

Posted by: JimD in FL | August 30, 2007 10:22 PM | Report abuse

Thompson should show how hip he is by ditching the tired "ImwithFred" crap and spunk it up a bit. I suggest utilizy the image of the gay rockers from England: ... "I'm too sexy for my shirt, so sexy it hurts....I'm a model you know what I mean and I do my little turn on the catwalk..."
Sex sells. Thompson aint got much else, lets face it, he's never done anything and even folk down the deep south may cotton on to the phony pickup truck driving bullsh*t he's dishing out.

Posted by: Tdaniels | August 30, 2007 10:18 PM | Report abuse

Realistically, who does Fred Thompson appeal to? Aren't we finally getting rid of a lazy, intellectually stunted "true-believer", who really wants another one?

Posted by: Dijetlo | August 30, 2007 10:18 PM | Report abuse

Absent a scandal, I think FT will play well in TX. Do you not think that the Rs now seem likely to have a contest at the Convention?

Posted by: Mark in Austin | August 30, 2007 10:17 PM | Report abuse

Fred Thompson?! A Hollywood TV actor? To save the GOP?! Enough said.

Posted by: Frederick | August 30, 2007 10:08 PM | Report abuse

It seems to me that someone trying this hard to skirt the edges of the financial laws for running for President couldn't be trusted not to play hard and fast when it came to following the law if he became President. The entire existence of his "non-campaign" in it's eternal "testing the water" style is evidence of his lack of character and basic honesty.

This is more like a man trying to cheat on his taxes without getting caught then someone running for President.

Posted by: ThomasR | August 30, 2007 10:04 PM | Report abuse

Yes, it's too late. Just like Wesley Clark in 2003, Thompson is a sub-par, overrated candidate who started too late. Had he gotten in and actively participated in the Ames straw poll, he might have had a chance. Huckabee has benefited from Thompson's procrastination.

Posted by: Paul Algire | August 30, 2007 9:47 PM | Report abuse

Oh, please, let Thompson be the nominee! Please, please, please, please, please! I'd love to see a lazy windbag lead the GOP charge against folks who work for a living.

Go, Fred Thompson supporters, go!

Posted by: Jen Q | August 30, 2007 9:31 PM | Report abuse

Senator Fred Thompson is the only conservative with a chance of defeating Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Hussein Obama or John "Pink Sapphire" Edwards. Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney and John McCain (Rudy McRomney) are Republicans In Name Only (RINOs) and the rest of the pack are unelectable. That leaves Fred. Here is his website:

Posted by: Alan Srout | August 30, 2007 9:09 PM | Report abuse

Great, another old geezer actor wants to be president. Hey Fred, that's quite an impressive record of accomplishments you compiled during your six year senate career...oops, soory, forgot you did NOTHING in those six years..another well qualified republicant.

Posted by: pj45 | August 30, 2007 9:07 PM | Report abuse

All this talk about "too late, too thin, no fire in the belly, trophy wife, staff shake-ups, too lazy" and all that amuse me. Many of these same accusations were made against Ronald Reagan when he was running, and history has shown us that he was one of the four or five greatest presidents. Fred Thompson will grab the GOP nomination and beat Hillary Clinton next year in a landslide. You heard it here first!

Posted by: Fred Paxson | August 30, 2007 8:57 PM | Report abuse

According to a report on CNN, Fred is going to announce at midnight, on the internet.... now that should stir lots of excitement!

I guess it'll be up to the MSM whether or not it's a big deal... and what else is going on in the news.

He should have announced in person.... think he got bad advice.

Posted by: Truth Hunter | August 30, 2007 8:10 PM | Report abuse

I like younger,blond women with big yabbos. So vote for me!

Posted by: Hi, I'm Fred Thompson! | August 30, 2007 6:26 PM | Report abuse

Actually, George, it seems to me that to the extent that there IS any momentum on the GOP side in Iowa, it would belong to Huckabee... who didn't pay to bus his supporters to the poll (as Mitty did) and didn't put on the dog for them once they got there (again, as Mitty did.) Add to that the fact that turnout was noticeably light, and you get the sense that there wasn't exactly a wave of enthusiasm for Mitt and his plastic fakery. I would remind you that those of us who have lived through his disinterested grandstanding as MA governor are not fooled. (although we are glad to be rid of him)

Posted by: Bokonon | August 30, 2007 6:24 PM | Report abuse

from the Slate link thoughtfully provided by proudtobeGOP:

Bathroom Sex FAQ

Is it wise to use a "wide stance" when you go to the bathroom?

No. When you're sitting on the toilet, spreading your feet and leaning forward tightens the levator ani muscles that control defecation. If you're having trouble passing stools, you should take the opposite of a wide stance, and lean back. Doctors recommend this technique to relax the bowel muscles.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 30, 2007 6:15 PM | Report abuse

Well at least he seems to like girls

Posted by: Anonymous | August 30, 2007 6:14 PM | Report abuse

At least Freddy is not a lying pervert.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | August 30, 2007 6:01 PM | Report abuse

Thompson's biggest problem will be cash flow. Can he raise enough to compete when states are playing primary/caucus leapfrog?

My guess is that he'll be all right there. He can probably tap the far right donor base now, although I think that will start to dry up a little once Romney and Guliani start hitting him. His record appears to be fairly inconsistent on so-called "values" issues.

In the end, his nomination is probably the best chance for the GOP to keep the White House, if for no other reason than he's probably values-conservative enough to keep a third-party candidate from emerging from the Christian right.

Posted by: JamesCH | August 30, 2007 5:53 PM | Report abuse

His chance passed. He waited way too long. Mitt has already won the straw poll. He has all the momentum in Iowa and New Hampshire and Michigan. Thompson waited and now his moment is gone. Too bad.

Posted by: George | August 30, 2007 5:52 PM | Report abuse

Judge- Better that than paper bags covering his/her feet, as mentioned in Slate today. Yuck!

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | August 30, 2007 5:50 PM | Report abuse

Oh, BTW, if Chris isn't writing this blog then who is? The Unknown Blogger? Shouldn't you replace CC's image with a guy/girl with a paper bag over his/her head?

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | August 30, 2007 5:38 PM | Report abuse

" Thompson's announcement too little too late or not?"
If polling is to be believed, no. The R's are NOT happen with their slate of current choices and Thompson still looks like shimmering mirage of hope. The idea that a few staff departures have even registered on the conciousness of the average R voter is laughable. Ha, ha, ha.

"The inside-the-Beltway crowd -- in truth, never Thompson believers -- seem to be convinced that his moment has passed."
This is precisely why we don't listen to the inside-the-Beltway crowd. Not that Thompson's honeymoon will last long as all of his warts/skeletons are waiting to be revealed to an electorate accustomed to finding flaws. Not to mention that his opponents will be happy to point them out.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | August 30, 2007 5:35 PM | Report abuse

Hey great -- now there are two boards for Thompson shills to fill. Go for it guys!

Posted by: Spectator2 | August 30, 2007 5:15 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company